“When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child â€“ beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.

“The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg.”

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives”.

The Council has received your letter of 23 March in which you press a
concern with an article published in the Cairns Post.

I note that you have sent me neither a completed complaint form, nor
a signed waiver. In the absence of those I cannot process your matter
as a complaint.

* You see, without filling out ‘a completed complaint form, and ‘without signing a waiver’ Jack Herman, the honorable representative of the press council of Australia, will not act.

Nice try Jack. Sign a waiver?

I think I smell a rat. Should I say it confirms my suspicions…?

I am also concerned with your comments and action in this matter. The
posting of comments on a public proposal â€“ such as the building of a
mosque â€“ on a publicly available medium, such as the Internet, places
your actions squarely in the public domain.

* No it doesn’t. The issue was about a mosque, not about me.
I thought I made that clear, right here:

I am not involved nor have I ever involved myself in a public campaign. I am a co-contributor of a website that exposes Islamic terror and atrocities, educates about Islamic jihad and the doctrine of Islam, which is a socio-political system in the guise of religion. I (like many others) provide news-feeds and comments. That’s all.
The article on the blog ‘winds of jihad’ never called for ‘holy war’ nor did it incite anyone to commit unlawful acts. The article ‘Stop the Mosque in Cairns ’ was a simple reaction to many Cairns residents’ objections. What was written in the blog reflected the sentiments of Cairns residents who would not get their objections heard otherwise.

*******

You do not deny that you
have posted the comments attributed to you nor that they relate to
the public debate on the proposal to build the mosque. Your views on
the Islamic religion are not relevant to this question. If, as you
say, there are good reasons for your public stance, this is all the
more reason for you to identify yourself with it. The newspaper
article arose because you were a local identified with a prominent
campaign on a local issue.

* No need to confirm or deny anything:

You’re missing the point, Jack.

My views on Islam may not be relevant to you, Jack.
But they reflect the views of the majority of the population of Cairns. Those views were reflected in the posting on the winds of Jihad blog. The views of posters on the blog are not necessarily my own.
But as you correctly state: If my views are not relevant, then why should my person, my age,Â my property, my place of residence and my business be of such great interest that it must be printed in the paper to draw attention to and make me and my family a target to those who are obliged to assassinate me because of their religion?

Lets apply your logic, Jack:

If the Cairns Fish wrap prints an article on behalf of some residents, it would then be an automatic requirement that the chief-editor (Okay, lets not mention his name, not yet) comes out flag waving for their cause with Gavin King in tow? You’re having me on, right Jack?

You counter with the proposition that the newspaper editor is
anonymous because he doesn’t sign editorials. The editorial in the
newspaper is the collective view of the newspaper and is generally
not signed but is identified with the editor, whose name will appear
elsewhere in the newspaper, probably in the colophon.

* His name doesn’t appear Jack. It doesn’t. Nowhere!
But I like your story about the ‘collective view’ –

reminds me of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’

Now:
How’s that? The Cairns fish wrap has a ‘collective view?’
You mean the Cairns Post is a collective?
As in commune? You don’t say!
Why am I not surprised?
You seriously telling me they have a ‘collective view?’
So you would agree that you and the editors of the Cairns fish wrap share collective guilt if some Islamic nutjob saws my head off..?

Well, come to think of it, collective guilt….

No, the name of the chief-editor ………….. does not appear anywhere. Certainly not in the paper.

Lets call him a faceless creep with a far left agenda.

No, he’s not in the telephone book either; it is as if he doesn’t exist.
Gavin King, your rabid reporter, the guy who tried to get me assassinated, is not listed either. Nowhere.

Why is that? If they have nothing to hide, why are they so afraid to let anyone know about their existence?

Further it now appears that you have widened your campaign to include
references on the website, not only to your opposition to the mosque
proposal but to an attack on the by-lined journalist. You suggested
in your original letter that you feared for your safety and that of
your family as a result of the Post article. Yet you have indicated
no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist whose
image and details you have published on the web. Instead of seeking
to find a resolution to your concerns with the newspaper, through the
Council, by completion of the waiver and the complaint form, you have
sought a form of revenge on the journalist.

* Wow: ‘I have widened my campaign’- well Jack, did you expect me to lie down and die?

Too bad, Jack:

So in your view (with respect) it is wrong for me to defend myself against hateful left wing lunatics? Should I not expose them and their vile and insidious agenda?

You seem to have a problem with that:

“You have sought a form of revenge on the journalist- and you have indicated no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist whose
Image and details you have published on the web”-

* Jack, you accuse me? Do you speak French?

“Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l’attaque, il se defend”

(”This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself”)

One of our readers sent this in:

Exactly how is publishing a photo and email address of a journalist which is at the top of his column – the same as publishing the details of an anonymous blogger? And how is there equal chances of violence from the Mohammadeans than from anti-Mohammadean writers? What sort of detached world do these people live in?

* Right. The resident whack-jobs from the Cairns fish wrap can smear me in the vilest way, can damage me personally, my business, put my family and myself in mortal danger, but I, yes I-, should have ‘analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist who’s details I have published on the web’-

Glad I didn’t sign your waiver, Jack. Your response confirms that it would have been a mistake.

Let me tell you, Jack; What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Gavin King and his supporting editor knew what they were doing. They had a choice. They were up to no good and I’m not going to concern myself with ‘their safety’-

Besides: When was the last time you heard of an Australian journalist having his head chopped off with a rusty knife in front of a camera because he put a fellow Australian’s life in danger? A rather uncommon scenario.

But doesn’t every man and his dog know by now that Muhammedans kill for their religion?

No, Jack. Do not fear for Gavin King.
Nobody will harm him, but perhaps nobody will trust him either. Not anymore. Some people might spit on him, some people might call him a traitor. Some might not invite him any more. Some might give him the finger and some might give him a shoe in the ass.

Does that worry you, Jack?

Gavin King brought it onto himself. Whether he is driven by extreme malice, envy or some other obsession doesn’t matter, the damage is done.

All he can lose is his pathetic job. Its not very much, is it?

But as long as you’re protecting him he won’t have to worry, right Jack?

The matter is now definitely beyond the capacity of the Press Council
to deal with. It has become a matter for the appropriate civil
authorities. I have closed the file on the matter.

Hicks will serve the sentence in Australia and the United States must send him home by May 29. (Reuters)

*

Muhammad Dawood (aka David Hicks) Update: a slap on the wrist. “Hicks gets nine-month sentence,” from Australia’s ABC News Online
A US military tribunal has sentenced confessed terrorism supporter David Hicks to seven years in jail but he will only have to serve nine months.
The tribunal judge accepted Hicks’s guilty plea as part of an agreement that limited his sentence to seven years in prison, in addition to the five years he has been held at the US base at Guantanamo Bay.

The deal allowed all but nine months of the sentence to be be suspended.

(Hicks’ ) guilty plea is simply a plea for release for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo Bay gulag.
Russian jihadists beg to differ. They think Guantanamo Bay is actually a lot nicer – or certainly safer – than even the prisons of Russia today.

SEVEN Russian terrorism suspects were tortured and abused after they returned from US detention at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch alleges.

The seven, arrested in and around Afghanistan shortly after the 2002 US-led invasion and accused of fighting with the hardline Islamic Taliban regime, were repatriated with the guarantee that they would not be harmed…

Apparently they think that if they don’t talk about it, it will go away. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that while their governments are punctiliously refraining from linking Islam and terrorism, the Islamic terrorists will keep on doing so, right under their noses, and they will be powerless to stop it — because after all, they can’t even talk about it.

“Don’t confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU,” by Bruno Waterfield in the Telegraph, with thanks to Dhimmi Watch

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.
Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term “Islamic terrorism” to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”.

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, “common lexicon”, is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

* Right. You see: Its a ‘religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists’…

*

Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism.

“This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality,” he said. “The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam.”

Islamic nations around the world have never signed up to human rights. In fact, all they have ever done is issued the ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights’which diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects, most notably in that the former unambiguously recognizes only those human rights that are in accordance with Sharia.

*

To put it mildly, anyone who buys this ‘Islamic Human Rights’ bullshit is either a complete idiot or an agent for Islam. Human rights and Islam don’t mix, the two are like fire and water.

‘Human Rights’ under Islam are about as good as a burka can be. Besides, there are no reciprocal agreements: Its a one way street to Islam, Islam and nothing but Islam.

The way of the left, the idea that you can fight bigoted intolerance with tolerance, is like trying to put the fire out with gasoline.

*

Strangely, Western human rights organizations are increasingly infiltrated and controlled by Mohammedans, one typical example which comes to mind is the revolting performance of Irene Khan, who called Gitmo a ‘Gulag’-,

You may ask
WHO IS IRENE KHAN

Irene Khan is the secretary general of Amnesty International
Among her defenders is the American head of Amnesty International, William Schultz, simply put:

These agents for Islam pervert the very idea of human rights and use their positions to further the Islamic ideology.

*

Now, as with the world body, the UN, where roughly 20 civilized nations are regularly outvoted by some 160 (or more un-) civilized nations, where most of the votes are bought and sold by and to our Arab masters, the Geneva based UN Human Rights Council is even more an utterly corrupt circus.

What remains is an insult to the very idea on which the human rights organization was founded. Last Monday we featured video of an amazing speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, in which Neuer blasted the hypocrites and despots of the Council and then was threatened with having his statements removed from the record, by a furious council president.

With a not-too-subtle hint that the press had better fall in line too.

GENEVA (Reuters) – The United Nations top human rights body condemned “defamation” of religion on Friday and, in an apparent reference to the storm over the Prophet cartoons, said press freedom had its limits.

With the support of China, Russia and Cuba, Moslem and Arab states comfortably won a vote on the 47-state Human Rights Council to express concern at “negative stereotyping” of religions and “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism.”

“The resolution is tabled in the expectation that it will compel the international community to acknowledge and address the disturbing phenomena of the defamation of religions, especially Islam,” said Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The resolution was opposed by Western states which said it focused too much on Islam. The job of the Council was to deal with the rights of individuals not religions, they said

Yes. Muslims concerned about the “defamation” of Islam should fight against violent jihad and Islamic supremacism. To point fingers at non-Muslims in this, when Muslims on virtually a daily basis commit acts of violence and justify them by Islamic precepts, is arrant hypocrisy.All they want is that we shut up and die. We won’t.